January 01, 2005

 

Wear Orange

Beginning today, this blog's orange template signifies solidarity with those who reject the results of the fraudulent US Presidential Election.


"What, me worry?"

Comments:
I, for one, agree with you. There are some serious questions about this election that need to be answered, yet those who caused the questions (i.e.: Ohio's SOS, Kenneth Blackwell) refuse to give straight and honest answers to the allegations.
 
Thanks, "Alphadork," for your comment. What I am going to say isn't directly relevant to your comment. As I have said many times in this blog, the reason many millions of people around the world feel so disappointed with the US is that, although it invented modern democracy, it has strayed so far from it--both in its international relations, and, now, even in its domestic politics. One isn't, for instance, as disappointed with Russia, because Russia has always been a dictatorship of one kind or another anyway.
 
in the 1960 presidential election john kennedy defeated richard nixon by a very narrow margin. there were claims by the republican party of election fraud on the part of the democrates. the republican party urged richard nixon to contest the election, he chose to accept the results of the election for the sake of the country. what does it say about a political party when they can't even "rise" to the ethical level of richard nixon?
 
Thanks very much for your comments, BJ. Firstly, I am just one individual Canadian. There are 25 million Canadians, and they all have varying opinions on all sorts of subjects. And, in any case, no-one in Canada is in the business of issuing permissions about who gets elected in the US or anywhere else. And I hope you won't mind if, as an aside, I add that we are not in the regime change business either. However, as the closest nation to the US in so many way, a majority of Canadians are extremely concerned about the direction the US has taken in the last few years. Your point about the 1960 election is well taken. I would just like to add, however, that in those days US elections were to a very great extent just local affairs that didn't concern the rest of the world very much, or at least not nearly to the extent that they do now. Today, whether anyone is a Bush supporter or not, they cannot deny the objective fact that most of humanity regards him as a major threat to world peace, not to speak of the environment and so on. Another point I would add about the 1960 election is that at that time there was nothing like the kind of division within the US that exists today. The worst thing that the government of a divided country can do is to ignore and cover up allegations of electoral fraud and voter suppression. As the birthplace of modern democracy, the US is setting a very poor example. Surely, the US can do better than the Ukraine!
 
i guess when i hear liberal cries of voter fraud these days i tend to ignore them. it's kind of like the boy who cried wolf.
 
george bush won the popular vote and the electoral vote and no amount of voter fraud cries can change that fact. the republican party also gained seats in both houses of congress in the same election.
 
Al: Your responses are polite but I respectfully disagree with the implication of a fraudulent U.S. election in 2004. The world hates Bush, no question. And although the election of our president does have influence on other countries, he's still our president. As an American, I'm disappointed with the job your prime minister, Paul Martin, & the rest of the Canadian parliment is doing. Cananda's complacency in North American affairs diminishes the U.S.'s efforts and results. A weaker United States equates to a weaker Canada.
 
Thanks for your comment, Kallen. As to the politeness of my responses, that's actually the way I really am. It is no pretense. Also, I don't think it is possible to have a useful discussion if two people don't treat each other with respect. Richard Lawson, MD, has gathered the evidence of fraud at http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/PolBushFraud.htm Now, he is British, and I am Canadian, and so an American might say "Why don't these foreigners leave our President alone?" Well, as you say, "the world hates Bush," and, I would add, for very good reason. A couple of billion dollars could have got rid of Bin Laden and his gang long ago. But no, Bush had to exploit 9/11 to realize all of his fantasies. Just from an economic point of view, the US debt is literally threatening to bankrupt the world, and yet the US government continues to splurge resources on making new enemies and giving tax cuts to the rich. As to Paul Martin, I assure you few people despise the Canadian Prime Minister more than I do. At the same time, the way that I and many other people see the foreign relations position of the Canadian government is that it has created an island of sanity alongside the insanity that has been going on at the White House for the last four years.
 
The problem with our recent presidential election was that it WAS legitimate. W. got voted in legally. 2000? Maybe not so much. There are millions in this country that think we found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Unfortunately, the populace has spoken and we're gonna have to sleep in the bed we made for ourselves.

As for the person who wants to point the finger at Clinton for lying about a hummer under oath to save himself embarrasment and possibly his marriage, but turn a blind eye to the manufacturing of evidence to send the US to war has serious denial issues.
 
Thanks for your comment, Russ. What you said about the commenter who is in denial reminded me of several commenters who have objected to my interference in US domestic affairs! Citizens of a country that sends armies across the world to change their regimes and grab their oil think my posting an objection to fraud in US elections in my blog amounts to interference in a sovereign nation's domestic affairs! Now that's what I call being in denial.
 
Really, how CAN you go past the expression on the face?

Surely that says it all in one image -

"I gotcha all DICKED. I know it, you won't until it is waaayyy too late."
 
Nice to see you again, probligo. The expression in this picture says everything anyone needs to know about Dubya's world. It is also a comprehensive guide to his character: his lack of what one normally means by "intelligence," his lack of a shred of compassion, his self-satisfaction, his arrogance ... I don't need to go on. The picture conveys it far better than any words.
 
None of his lies will catch up with him. Why? Because the Americans who love him are to stupid see past Bush's ignorance. To be quite honest, I would rather his presidency just end when his term is up; go quietly out the door and never hear or see from him again. I can't wait until 2008. Cheney won't run and all we can hope full is that a good president comes in, Democrat or Republican, who is not a ridiculous little redneck like little Bush.
 
Thanks, Bella, for your comment. As much as most sane people hate Bush, I am not convinced that he is the problem. The problem is the mentality that you point out in your comment. Bush is a symptom of a disease that has overtaken the US. Just look at who the Democrats picked as their Presidential candidate. Kerry, who, according to Dubya, is as liberal as one can get without falling off the political spercturm, sees nothing wrong with the Iraq invasion. He just thinks the invasion has been mismanaged.
 
Is it because Canadian politics are such a disaster that Canadians seem so compelled to focus on the US?
 
THC, if you don't know by now why the whole world's attention has been focussed on US politics for the last four years, I don't think there is anything I can say that could help you understand the reason. Personally, I didn't care at all what happended in the US until the 2000 election victory was stolen from Al Gore.
 
in my opinion the best part of the US election after the disgraceful liberal screams about election fraud was the fact that as the outgoing vice president gore had to preside over the senate when the electoral votes were tallied and announce his own defeat.

one more point about the 2000 elections. if al gore could have carried his own home state or even bill clintons home state he would have won the election. to my shame as a minnesotan even walter mondale managed to to carry his home state in the beating he took from ronald reagan in 1984.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.






This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?






eXTReMe Tracker